Author
Topic: The OFFICIAL Vikings v Packers Game Day Thread (Read 345 times)

The first week was a win, if not an offensive success. There are still a lot of questions. Where is the MLF offense we heard so much about during the off season? Why is Rodgers running the play clock down so far, and still holding onto the ball so long? Is the Packers defense really good, or was it a matter of facing an inept QB and an out-of-sync offense by the Bears? And for the Vikings, are they good, or are the Falcons doing their usual "good once a decade, then back to mediocre" act? Cousins threw only 10 passes during that game, depending on the run and the ineptness of the Falcons on both sides of the ball. The Packers game plan should be similar to the Bears: force Cousins to beat you with his arm. And for goodness sake, get Rodgers to throw the ball more quickly and move the team at a quicker pace and get some rhythm going on offense! It's all so easy when you're sitting in your living room and typing.

Comments and Q's: I live in Minnesota, my brothers-in-law are Vikings fans, and I was at a family thing after church on Sunday so watched most of first half with them. (A new brother-in-law is from Honduras; it was fun teaching him and explaining American football....)

That was a weird game, and doesn't show much about what the vikings will do offensively. First drive, blocked Atlanta punt, then a nice 31-yard TD drive. Second Falcons possession, INT, then a 41-yard TD drive. So, it was 14-0 before the game had hardly started, and the Vikings defense was of course dominating. Probably hyperbole, but the Vikings were basically already in prevent defense and 4th-quarter conservative-run-the-clock mode with 10 minutes left in the 1st quarter! Early 2nd quarter another fumble, and the Vikes had a longer 59-yard drive, and it was totally all over.

Their defense was really good and was pretty suffocating, as you'd expect. The coaches know that. Vikings offense had no reason to try much or show anything much or take any risks once they'd opened the 14 and then 21-0 lead.

Cousins was 80% completion, he looked really accurate as usual. He took no risks, and held the ball a little bit if a guy wasn't wide open, and the line seemed pretty pass-rush vulnerable. The running game looked really good, they have two really good backs, and they were able to run sweepish stuff outside in either direction. But, that was against Atlanta.

I think Packers might be a different story. With Preston, Z, and Gary, I'd think the Packers defensive front might (hopefully) be WAY better at setting the edge and keeping the running backs in the pocket. Vikes had short drives and were able to run their way to the early TD's, and then were pretty fine to punt and let the defense stifle. I assume the packers will be WAY better versus the outside runs then Atlanta was, and thus that Vikes will need to try other stuff.

They've got terrific receivers who can make difficult catches, and QB has good accuracy. But I think they're going to try to run. I expect it to be another low-scoring affair. They'll run, we'll need to snuff them; Cousins will get stuck with some 3rd and longs; our pass pressure will need to convert and the secondary hold on some of the 3rd-downs. Packers obviously will not have much luck running against that defense either, so Rodgers will get stuck with 3rd downs and 3rd down blitzes.

I assume it will be relatively low scoring, and make-or-break on some big plays. Thielen and Diggs, those guys are really good and are great at catching balls even when well-covered, and Cousins is pretty accurate. They may convert on some difficult big plays where those guys make difficult catches, or where we're getting called for pass interference. A couple of big plays, and they can score a couple of TD's and that might be game. Or for us, last week Rodgers had the long completion to MVS, and Graham made a very difficult contested TD catch and that was game. Maybe it's going to be us that gets a couple of key big plays, and if we score two TD's that might be all we need.

It was my observation in Vikes game that while Atlanta's QB often had pressure, that there were a number of plays where he had pretty reasonable time. Not sure if that's possibly promising that Rodgers may have some pockets at times, obviously not consistently so, but that he might get some room and time to throw? That's my hope, that he gets enough time and gets some completions and they start to get rolling. Not sure, though. Maybe Falcons have better line, beats me; also well possible that Vikings defense was just playing kind of containment defense for most of the game, and had no reason to try a lot of blitzing and stuff.

But yeah, pretty crucial that our front is able to really snuff their running game. And that when we get them to third downs, that the pressure is on and we stop them and don't give up lots of 3rd-down completions. And that offensively Rodgers and the passing game get more going more often than they did versus Bears.

I know a couple guys who have NFL Game Pass and they get "All-22" film access, which is what the coaching staff uses to watch game film.

One of the things they noticed against the Bears was that, even though Rodgers held the ball longer than he needed to on a few plays, most of the time he held the ball was due to the WR's being blanketed in coverage. They even went as far as to say that the routes being run reminded them of MM's offense.

I think MLF was hesitant to open up the offense with it being the first game and against the Bears. All the preseason inactivity meant MLF wasn't going to get too crazy with his play calling.

Rodger said he needs to do better, but so did MLF.

The offense looked it's best when they were running up tempo and quick hitting passes. Except for the long pass to MVS, Rodgers was throwing in rhythm and they scored the only TD of the game.

I think the TE's will be even more involved this week than they were last week. Both in run and pass.

Both Bakhtiari (back) and Alexander (knee) have been added to the injury report.

Bak didn't practice today and Alexander was "limited".

What this means for Sunday is yet to be determined, but right now it's worrisome.

Well, if we're going to worry, let's add that Adams is getting antsy at the pace of the offense. Things will work out. Bakhtiari being gone is far more serious than the loss of Alexander, though both would be significant.

However, to me, there is a section from this CheeseheadTV article that needs to be asked: is Rodgers in decline? Has he become the "next Favre", too set in his ways, too stubborn to change, more of a "my way or the highway" player? It can happen. But as noted, if he wins, who cares? However, another disappointing season, even with a coaching change and a (hopefully) rejuvenated defense, and this becomes a topic that would need to be addressed.

Mostly, this will be a big game of cat and mouse between Mike Zimmer and Aaron Rodgers. Yes, LaFleur calls the plays, but I've seen enough already to know that this offense is most certainly in the hands of the veteran quarterback. Maybe they spread it out and go tempo. Maybe they utilize the fullback in the passing game some more like we saw throughout the first part of training camp. Whatever wrinkles we see on Sunday will only be as effective as Rodgers allows them to be. He clearly hasn't worked on cleaning up his mechanics. He's still taking the play clock all the way down prior to the snap of the ball. He's still not playing within the rhythm of the play design. All of that is fine - if he makes it work. Complete those passes you don't step into or sling side arm (sometimes both at the same time) and exactly zero people will care.

But the more balls we see thrown at Jimmy Graham's feet or out of the reach of a breaking-open-on-an-out-route Davante Adams, the more Rodgers' play needs to be scrutinized. It's all well and good to point to past MVP awards and shrug at the deterioration of his mechanics, but the longer he isn't productive because of it, the more it hurts this team.

Yes, this has been discussed before. But McCarthy did something that I didn't think was possible- he brought Favre under control and made him more accountable after the Sherman years. LaFleur has not shown an ability to do this yet. Rodgers can say "I want to be coached" as often as he wants. But until we see it on the field, it's just words.